Am I the only one who noticed that the article is complete hype with no valid information? It even links to a user submitted OTX threat monitor pulse from February containing a list of malicious domain names, referring to it as an FBI Security Flash on the issue. This is nothing but a collection of random comments strewn together to sound scary. I am personally collecting a list of sites which mirror this article to build a simple "what not to read" site list for new security analysts...

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about your post... Pot, meet kettle. Why not skip the rhetoric and contribute to the conversation?

Although I may not be quite as blatant in my manner of stating it, I have to agree with Bullshit's comment. I would be interested to see the researchers compare the number of trolls to the number of similar agents in other mediums such as TV, Radio, or Print. I have always thought that the problem isn't that trolls are more prevalent, but that we bring more attention to it with "pie in the sky" ideas of scripting away human factors.

I look at it this way, trolls in the comments section are our version of talk shows on TV and Radio. Jerry Springer was always bound to happen...

The APU1C series support the WLE200NX which is an Atheros A2980, and the Alix 2&3D series support the WLM200NX which is an Atheros A9220 supported in current versions od Linux and BSD, and all available on netgate. With that, 802.11N Shouldn't be an issue (on your own on Ac, however). RThat said, I have not tried myself, but only checked the Debian and PFsense forums before posting the URLs to make surte it was a valid option.

Netgate.com and http://www.pcengines.ch/ both have a whole line of Alix mainboards and router boards available that can run bsd monowall, or a series of liux distros... have at, dude.

Uhm, this is SO not true. Google, for example has done white papers and research docs, written articles, blogs posts, and practically screamed from the mountain that they use a "no trust" model including a wide range of individual measures on each resource. While firewalls are not used on ALL devices, they are used on many.

Facebook also uses asset level security, including asset level firewalls; discussing this in an article about them signing a deal with Duo Security, and Ann arbor, MI based security company.

Both of these companies have repeatedly made public statements that there is no canned answer for security, and that even individual resources are treated differently depending on case. You should not use random companies for example without knowing that your facts are correct.

I think, from reading your post, that you mis-understand the meaning of "the company store." The problem was not with the store at all, but with the company scrip which could only be used at the company stores. The company scrip was not exchangable for any other currency, and became invalid the moment your employment at the company ended. If I want to change currancy that I am holding, I can simply exchange my currency for another using a known stable exchange rate.

With regard to your "Ignorance" comment: Whereas you are correct that the real value of a currency is the exchange rate for goods and services, you don't account for the fact that the price for said goods and services is set by a value judgement or analysis based on basic public trust in the currency used to mark the price. The reason the Dollar has a true value is because I can measure and compare that value. The comment was not ignorant at all, you just didn't follow the logic through to its end. You should not be quick to call fool...

I think you are close, but take the wrong approach.

A lot of things which are free are very good. The cost isn't the problem. If they say that the problem is that it isn;t worth the money, then ask them to go find someone who will offer it for less or for free.

saying "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" is a horrible excuse. If you think it is a bad value, then do not buy it. MY guess would be that you can wait until it is a fairer price. Consider the $1.00 theater approach. Many people think that full price for a movie is horrible, so they wait until it comes out at the dollar theater. The same thing will work for movies and software. If people refuse to buy due to a high price, the company will have to lower it's price or go out of business. If people steal it instead, then the company can opt to raise it's price and blame the thieves.

There is also the argument that you could just stick to free movies and entertainment instead of stealing the commercial ones...

I may have missed someone already saying this, but I believe that you are asking a question which is impossible to objectively answer.

In order to actually give you an answer, someone would need to show both that the work lost money and that it was because of people illegally downloading it for free. I see several problems with your request.

-1- I have to show that the work ACTUALLY lost money (Harry Potter).
-2- I have to show that the people would have paid if they couldn't download it for free.
-3- I have to have an accurate count of downloads to see if it would have made money.

Of course, I could also ask a question or two in return. If everyone in town takes a little corn out of a farmers field, but the farmer cannot get an accurate count of how much was stolen by each person, where they still stealing? If he goes bankrupt, could I justify by asking if the corn I took was the corn that put him out of business? If he raised his prices to cover the loss, could I claim that he would have raised his prices anyway, so it's OK?

You could use any of the various server-based out-of-band management solutions, but only if your MB supports them. The trick here is that they will use more power than your AGP card, or a PCI FIFO card, and will cost FAR more than either of these other solutions. Is that really what you want?

Entry: own Pronunciation: \ËÅn\ Function: adjective 1 : belonging to oneself or itself â"usually used following a possessive case or possessive adjective -- This is, by the very definition of the word, a proper statement. To own something is to possess or to control it. Is that not precisely what he means in this case?

This sounds like a reason to support the idea, not a reason to prevent it. If you are correct that "everyone" releases buggy code, then maybe we need to give them an incentive to do a little more testing. Do you believe that manufacturers should be allowed to continue production of a product when they are deliberately ignoring safety recalls? Would you feel cheated if you found out that Ford had deliberately ignored a known safety issue, and sold you a car that is known to catch fire, or to repeatedly stall without reason?

Programmers love to put out an upgrade with new bells and whistles, and this is good. I have no problem with the fact that open-source AND proprietary software will have bugs that show up and require addressing. I also have no problem with software having a limited support cycle. I DO have a problem with the fact that a new revision of a product (or several new revisions in the case of some developers) will be released without ever addressing the known issues, or that vendors will refuse to address issues on a current product. This is gross negligence, and needs to be addressed.

I think that the idea of a stated legal responsibility warrants consideration. If nothing else, it gives direction to a area that is, as of yet, not being addressed at all. If we can create a standard set of responsibilities for IT professionals, then it will not only hold them responsible for failing to meet their obligation, but also define what is NOT their responsibility.

To answer your question, it has ALWAYS been "Freedom, but only on our terms." That was the very idea of the copyleft. It is also basic idea of freedom in general. The same limitations apply everywhere else. With all political jokes/opinions aside (please, just theory here, guys), in a free country you are allowed to exercise your freedom in a manner which is consistent with all other persons'. This means that your freedom is limited in that it cannot affect or infringe anyone else's. This is the very basis of the justice system. In my opinion, the contribution from Microsoft, while possibly just made to prevent a lawsuit, is still an open-source contribution. The only questions about whether it should be included are "is the code clean and stable, is the code necessary, and is the license free." The most important part of that has always been the last part. The license for the code must not change, or differ from, the license under which the kernel is currently distributed. I am not a legal expert, but my interpretation is that, to be included in the Linux kernel, it needs to match both FOSS tests. IT must be provided at no cost, it must allow modification and re-distribution, and it must make all source code available in a manner consistent with the kernel's license. This totally ignores the question of whether it is needed, but that is irrelevant to your comment. I think that is a discussion for a different thread.

But there is an important point to be made there, as well. Microsoft advertises the large number of Windows admins available, and warns of the increased cost of using "specialist" admins for *nix environments. If they are basing their TCO studies off of these admins, then the "ignorant admin" cost as you call it IS part of the TCO which is not being considered. Microsoft put themselves in this spot when they modeled their certification into an advertising campaign for the number of admins rather than a way to certify the best technicians when they were competing against Novell 4.3. The author's point still stands.

I am somewhat surprised that a longtime editor would make such an absolutely ridiculous statement. Apparently, the journalist (OK, editor) did not do much research before publishing his view. It is pretty common knowledge that comments on a story are not a cross section of the readers views. Most readers are passive, and do not comment on every story they read. They will only respond to those which strike at their sense of values, or that the reader strongly oppose as false (obviously, this is my reason for commenting now). If everyone who read a Slashdot story commented on it, Slashdot would need far more storage space than they use now. Almost any Blog or News Site would have ample material to reference from their comments section to demonstrate the fact that the fringes of the audience's views are echoed in the majority if the responses, and that only an exceptionally striking article will receive more of a balanced response (yes, Virginia, there is an audience).